Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Personal Data After the Death of the Data Subject—Exploring Possible Features of a Holistic Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 28))

Abstract

This paper intends to explore possible features of a holistic approach to the legal treatment of personal data. The paper proceeds in an inductive way. As an exemplary scenario the legal treatment of personal data after the death of the data subject is examined. More specifically, recent cases with regard to heirs demanding access to a social media account and to the personal data therein after the death of the testator are analysed and used as a reference point for discussion. It is examined how property law, intellectual property law, privacy law, the right to personality, the portability provisions, contract law, inheritance law and telecommunications law deal with personal data after the death of the testator. Against this background, shortcomings, common features and possible synergies are identified which might be taken into account for developing a holistic legal approach to personal data.

Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt, Dr., Dr., LL.M. (NYU), Attorney at Law (New York), is a Senior Researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are, for instance, no special provisions in Belgium: Maeschaelck (2018), 37 or Germany: Mackenrodt (2018), 41.

  2. 2.

    See for example Wellenhofer (2016), 653; Deusch (2016), 189; Gloser (2016a), 12; Salomon (2016), 324; Gloser (2015), 4; Herzog (2016), 173; Gloser (2016b), 548; Lange / Holtwiesche (2016a), 487; Podszun (2016), 37; Lange / Holtwiesche (2016b), 125; Mackenrodt (2018), 41; Bock (2017), 370; Alexander (2016), 301; Raude (2017), 17; Steiner / Holzer (2015), 262; Nemeth / Carvalho (2017), 253; Kuntz (2016), 398.

  3. 3.

    See for example Kutscher (2015); Katharina Seidler (2015); Bräutigam (2014), Anhang Digitaler Nachlass; Gebauer (2015).

  4. 4.

    See for example Müller-Christmann (2017), § 1922 para. 99 et seq; Leipold (2017), § 1922 para. 24 et seq; Preuß (2017), § 1922 para. 375 et seq; Kunz (2017), § 1922 para. 594 et seq.

  5. 5.

    See for example Nemeth/Carvalho (2017), 253; with a focus on the UK law: Harbinja (2017), 253; with a focus on Belgium: Maeschaelck (2018), 37; with a focus on the Netherlands see Berlee (2017), 256; with a focus on Austria see: Gebauer (2015). See also the consultation paper of the UK Law commission on making wills: Law Commission UK (2017).

  6. 6.

    The features of the memorial status are subject to change. A recent description of its properties can be found with Harbinja (2017), 254, 255.

  7. 7.

    LG Berlin, judgment of 17 December 2015 - 20 O 175/15.

  8. 8.

    KG Berlin, judgment of 31 May 2017 - 21 U 9/16, 24.

  9. 9.

    BGH, judgment announced for 12 July 2018 - III ZR 183/17.

  10. 10.

    Raude (2017), 19; Bräutigam (2014), Anhang Digitaler Nachlass, para 3; Deusch, (2014), 2; Maeschaelck (2018), 38.

  11. 11.

    Further examples can be found in Alexander (2016), 302; Gebauer (2015), 69 et seq; Berlee (2017), 256.

  12. 12.

    Raude (2017), 17.

  13. 13.

    Alexander (2016), 303; Raude (2017), 19.

  14. 14.

    Stresemann (2017), § 90 para. 25.

  15. 15.

    An overview of this debate on the creation of an ownership in data and a critical assessment can for example be found in Drexl (2017), 340 et seq.

  16. 16.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe’ COM (2015) 192 final, 15, 20. The European Commission is announcing to (among other topics) address the emerging issue of data ownership. See also Zech (2015), 1151.

  17. 17.

    Maeschaelck (2018), 37, 38 with regard to the Belgian law.

  18. 18.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Building a European data economy’ COM (2017) 9 final, 8.

  19. 19.

    Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, OJ L 119/1, 4 May 2016 (GDPR).

  20. 20.

    GDPR, recital 27.

  21. 21.

    Bock (2017), 398.

  22. 22.

    Harbinja (2017), 255.

  23. 23.

    Berlee (2017), 259.

  24. 24.

    Berlee (2017), 259.

  25. 25.

    For a discussion see 5.

  26. 26.

    With regard to France and Hungary reported by Harbinja (2017), 255; with regard to France see also Chrobak (2017), recital 10.

  27. 27.

    A proposal with regard to Swiss law is reported by Chrobak (2017), recital 10.

  28. 28.

    Bock (2017), 402.

  29. 29.

    A discussion of inheritance law and personal data can be found below 8.

  30. 30.

    For a discussion of inheritance law and the relationship to privacy issues see below 8.3.

  31. 31.

    Preuß (2017), recital 352, 360; Bock (2017), 387.

  32. 32.

    Preuß (2017), recital 353, 367.

  33. 33.

    Bock (2017), 389; Preuß (2017), recital 353, 368.

  34. 34.

    Preuß (2017), recital 363.

  35. 35.

    Bock (2017), 395.

  36. 36.

    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2015 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content COM(2015) 634 final.

  37. 37.

    Chrobak (2017), recital 3.

  38. 38.

    Lange / Holtwiesche (2016b), 128.

  39. 39.

    Examples can be found in Lange / Holtwiesche (2016a), 488; Raude (2017), 21. Willems (2016), 496; Harbinja (2017), 254.

  40. 40.

    An overview of this industry is provided by Martini (2015), 35.

  41. 41.

    Directive (EEC) 93/13 of the Council of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts OJ L95/29, 21 April 1993.

  42. 42.

    For further details see for example Fuchs (2016), § 307 para. 239.

  43. 43.

    For a thorough discussion see for example Wendehorst / Graf von Westphalen (2016), Graf von Westphalen (2017).

  44. 44.

    Fuchs (2016), § 307 para. 133.

  45. 45.

    Wurmnest (2017), § 307 para. 50.

  46. 46.

    An agreement which provides for an automatic deletion of an account considered as invalid by many authors, see Gloser (2016a), 13; Alexander (2016), 306; Raude (2017), 20; Lange / Holtwiesche (2016b), 128; Gloser (2016b), 548; Herzog (2013), 3751.

  47. 47.

    A legal assessment of different standardized agreements can be found with Seidler (2015), 143 et seq; Kutscher (2015), 116 et seq.

  48. 48.

    For data portability see 6.

  49. 49.

    For the discussion on a possible data ownership see 3.

  50. 50.

    Leipold (2017), para 29.

  51. 51.

    For further examples see 1.

  52. 52.

    See also Deutscher Anwaltsverein (2013), 62 et seq.

  53. 53.

    BGH, IX ZR 401/12, 8 October 2013.

  54. 54.

    Lange / Holtwiesche (2016a), 489; Raude (2017), 23.

  55. 55.

    LG Berlin, judgment of 17 December 2015 - 20 O 175/15B. II. 2. e.

  56. 56.

    See § 1922 BGB.

  57. 57.

    See Maeschaelck (2018), 40.

  58. 58.

    See Berlee (2017), 256.

  59. 59.

    Lange / Holtwiesche (2016b), 162.

  60. 60.

    The distinction between a disposition during lifetime and a disposition upon death is in general discussed by for example Müller-Christmann (2017), § 1937 para. 3.

  61. 61.

    Harbinja (2017), 254; Maeschaelck (2018), 41.

  62. 62.

    For a discussion on personal data and intellectual property law see 3.

  63. 63.

    For the inheritability of the author’s right in Belgium see Maeschaelck (2018), 39.

  64. 64.

    Leipold (2017), § 1922 para. 20.

  65. 65.

    Fort he UK Harbinja (2017), 254.

  66. 66.

    For a similar solution under Belgian law see Maeschaelck (2018), 40.

  67. 67.

    Chrobak (2017), recital 1.

  68. 68.

    Maeschaelck (2018), 40.

  69. 69.

    For dual character of the right to personality consisting of a personal element and a commercial element see 5.

  70. 70.

    Hoeren (2005), 2114.

  71. 71.

    Hoeren (2005), 2114.

  72. 72.

    Deutscher Anwaltsverein (2013), 52.

  73. 73.

    See for example Solmecke/ Köbrich/ Schmitt (2015), 291; Salomon (2016), 326; Klas / Möhrke-Sobolewski (2015), 3474; Raude (2017), 19; Lange / Holtwiesche (2016b), 126.

  74. 74.

    Steiner / Holzer (2015), 263; Herzog (2013), 3748; Gloser (2016a), 16; Raude (2017),19; Alexander (2016), 303.

  75. 75.

    Leipold (2017), para. 24.

  76. 76.

    KG Berlin, judgment of 31 May 2017 - 21 U 9/16, 24.

  77. 77.

    For the legal situation in Belgium Maeschaelck (2018), 40.

  78. 78.

    KG Berlin, judgment of 31 May 2017 - 21 U 9/16, 20; Lange / Holtwiesche (2016b), 129 who point to the fact that the social network business is aimed at a high number of people in a standardized way.

  79. 79.

    This distinction is also made by Herzog (2013), 3749; Gloser (2016a), 14.

  80. 80.

    The comparison with banking accounts is made by Bräutigam (2014), Anhang Digitaler Nachlass, para 5.

  81. 81.

    LG Berlin, judgment of 17 December 2015 - 20 O 175/15 B. II. 2. e.

  82. 82.

    KG Berlin, judgment of 31 May 2017 - 21 U 9/16, 45.

  83. 83.

    On OTT services and the German telecommunications law see Deusch / Eggendorfer (2007), 96 et seq.

  84. 84.

    BVerfG, judgment of 16 June 2009 - BvR 902/06.

  85. 85.

    BVerfG, judgment of 16 June 2009 - BvR 902/06, para. 47.

  86. 86.

    LG Berlin, judgment of 17 December 2015 - 20 O 175/15 B. II. 2. e.

  87. 87.

    KG Berlin, judgment of 31 May 2017 - 21 U 9/16, 30 et seq.

  88. 88.

    OVG Münster – 13 A 17/16 see Press Release 26 February 2018.

  89. 89.

    LG Berlin, judgment of 17 December 2015 - 20 O 175/15 B. II. 2. e.

  90. 90.

    KG Berlin, judgment of 31 May 2017 - 21 U 9/16, 30 et seq.

  91. 91.

    Chrobak (2017), recital 1.

  92. 92.

    See for example Bock (2017), 397 et seq; Klas / Möhrke-Sobolewski (2015), 3473; Deusch (2016), 194; Knoop (2016), 969.

  93. 93.

    See for example Bock (2017), 402 et seq.

  94. 94.

    Alexander (2016), 303.

  95. 95.

    Steiner / Holzer (2015), 264; Leipold (2017), para. 27.

  96. 96.

    Herzog (2013), 3750.

  97. 97.

    See 7.3.

  98. 98.

    See Article 20 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/64/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).

  99. 99.

    AG Bad Hersfeld, judgment of 20 March 2017 - F 111/17 EASO; AG Bad Hersfeld, judgment of 14 May 2017 - F 120/17 EASO.

  100. 100.

    A general presumed consent not only for communications with minors is assumed by Steiner / Holzer (2015), 264. The KG Berlin rejects the idea of presumed consent arguing that many but not all minors would their access data on to their parents, see KG Berlin, judgment of 31 May 2017 - 21 U 9/16, 43.

  101. 101.

    Deutscher Anwaltsverein (2013), 6.

  102. 102.

    Alexander (2016), 307; Lange / Holtwiesche (2016b), 131.

  103. 103.

    Berlee (2017), 256.

References

  • Alexander, C. (2016), Digitaler Nachlass als Rechtsproblem, K&R 2016, 301

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlee, A. (2017), Digital Inheritance in the Netherlands, EuCML 2017, 256

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, M. (2017), Juristische Implikationen des digitalen Nachlasses, AcP 2017, 370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bräutigam, P. (2014), in: Burandt, W. / Rojahn, D. (Eds.), Erbrecht, 2nd ed., C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Chrobak, L. (2017), Digital Estate Revisited, Jusletter IT Flash 11 Dec 2017

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Anwaltverein (DAV) (2013), Stellungnahme Nr. 34/2013 zum Digitalen Nachlass, 52, available at: https://anwaltverein.de/files/anwaltverein.de/downloads/newsroom/stellungnahmen/2013/SN-DAV34-13.pdf

  • Deusch, F. (2016), Digitaler Nachlass – Vererbbarkeit von Nutzerkonten in sozialen Netzwerken, ZEV 2016, 189

    Google Scholar 

  • Deusch, F. / Eggendorfer, T. (2007), Das Fernmeldegeheimnis im Spannungsfeld aktueller Kommunikationstechnologien, K&R 2007, 93

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexl, J. (2017), Neue Regeln für die Europäische Datenwirtschaft?, NZKart 2017, 339

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, A. (2016), in: Ulmer, P. / Brandner, H. E. / Hensen, H.-D. (Eds.), AGB-Recht, § 307 para. 220, 12th edition, Dr. Otto Schmidt

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer, J. (2015), Digitale Verlassenschaft, AkademikerVerlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloser, S. (2015), “Digitale Vorsorge” in der notariellen Praxis, DNotZ 2015, 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloser, S. (2016a), “Digitaler Erblasser” und “digitale Vorsorgefälle” – Herausforderungen der Online-Welt in der notariellen Praxis – Teil I, MittBayNot 2016, 12

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloser, S. (2016b), Digitaler Nachlass, DNotZ 2016, 545

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf von Westphalen, A. (2017), Nutzungsbedingungen von Facebook – Kollision mit europäischem und deutschem AGB-Recht, VuR 2017, 323

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbinja, E. (2017), Digital Inheritance in the United Kingdom, EuCML 2017, 253

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, S. (2016), Der digitale Nachlass ist in der Rechtswirklichkeit angekommen, ErbR 2016, 173

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, S. (2013), Der digitale Nachlass – ein bisher kaum gesehenes und häufig missverstandenes Problem, NJW 2013, 3745

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeren, T. (2005), Der Tod und das Internet – Rechtliche Fragen zu Verwendung von E-Mail und WWW-Acounts nach dem Tode des Inhabers, NJW 2005, 2113

    Google Scholar 

  • Klas, B. / Möhrke-Sobolewski, C. (2015), Digitaler Nachlass – Erbenschutz trotz Datenschutz, NJW 2015, 3473

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoop, M. (2016), Digitaler Nachlass – Vererbbarkeit von Konten (minderjähriger) Nutzer in Sozialen Netzwerken, NZFam 2016, 966

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuntz, W. (2016), Zugang der Erben zum Facebook-Nutzerkonto, FuR 2016, 398

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunz, L. (2017), in: Staudinger Kommentar zum BGB, § 1922 para. 594 ff, 13th ed., Sellier - de Gruyter

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutscher, A. (2015), Der digitale Nachlass, V&R unipress

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, K. W. / Holtwiesche, M. (2016a), Das digitale Erbe – eine rechtstatsächliche Bestandsaufnahme, ErbR 2016, 487

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, K. W. / Holtwiesche, M. (2016b), Digitaler Nachlass – eine Herausforderung für Wissenschaft und Praxis (Teil 1), ZErb 2016, 125

    Google Scholar 

  • Leipold, D. (2017), in: Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, § 1922 para. 24 ff, 7th edition, C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenrodt, M.-O. (2018), Digital Inheritance in Germany, EuCML 2018, 41

    Google Scholar 

  • Maeschaelck, B. (2018), Digital Inheritance in Belgium, EuCML 2018, 37

    Google Scholar 

  • Martini, M. (2015), Trauer 2.0 – Rechtsfragen digitaler Formen der Erinnerungskultur, GewArch Beilage WiVerw 2015, 35

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Christmann, B. (2017), in: BeckOK BGB, § 1922 para. 99 ff, 42nd edition, C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, K. / Carvalho, J. M. (2017), Digital Inheritance in the European Union, EuCML 2017, 253

    Google Scholar 

  • Podszun, P. (2016), Rechtsnachfolge beim digitalen Nachlass, GWR 2016, 37

    Google Scholar 

  • Preuß, N. (2017), in: BeckOGK BGB, § 1922 para. 347 ff., 375 ff., C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Raude, K. (2017), Der digitale Nachlass in der notariellen Praxis, RNotZ 2017, 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, P. (2016), “Digitaler Nachlass” - Möglichkeiten der notariellen Vorsorge, NotBZ 2016, 324

    Google Scholar 

  • Solmecke, C. / Köbrich, T. / Schmitt, R. (2015), Der digitale Nachlass – haben Erben einen Auskunftsanspruch? Überblick über den rechtssicheren Umgang mit den Daten von Verstorbenen, MMR 2015, 291

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidler, K. (2015), Digitaler Nachlass, Wolfgang Metzner Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, A. / Holzer, A. (2015), Praktische Empfehlungen zum digitalen Nachlass, ZEV 2015, 262

    Google Scholar 

  • Stresemann, C. (2017), in: Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, § 90 para. 25, 7th edition, C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellenhofer, M. (2016), Erbrecht: Digitaler Nachlass, JuS 2016, 653

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendehorst C. / Graf von Westphalen, A. (2016), Das Verhältnis zwischen Datenschutz-Grundverordnung und AGB-Recht, NJW 2016, 3745

    Google Scholar 

  • Willems, C. (2016), Erben 2.0 – zur Beschränkung der Rechtsnachfolge in das “digitale Vermögen”, ZfPW 2010, 494

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurmnest, W. (2017), in: Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, § 307 para. 50, 7th edition, C.H. Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Zech, H. (2015), Industrie 4.0 – Rechtsrahmen für eine Datenwirtschaft im digitalen Binnenmarkt, GRUR 2015, 1151

    Google Scholar 

Additional Sources

  • AG Bad Hersfeld, judgment of 15 May 2017 - F 120/17 EASO

    Google Scholar 

  • AG Bad Hersfeld, judgment of 20 March 2017 - F 111/17 EASO

    Google Scholar 

  • BGH, judgment of 8 October 2013 - IX ZR 401/12

    Google Scholar 

  • BGH, judgment announced for 12 July 2018 - III ZR 183/17

    Google Scholar 

  • BVerfG 2, judgment of 16 June 2009 - BvR 902/06

    Google Scholar 

  • Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe’ COM (2015) 192 final, 15

    Google Scholar 

  • Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Building a European data economy’ COM (2017) 9 final, 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive (EEC) 93/13 of the Council of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts OJ L95/29, 21 April 1993

    Google Scholar 

  • KG Berlin, judgment of 31 May 2017 - 21 U 9/16

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Commission UK (2017), Making a will, Consultation Paper 231

    Google Scholar 

  • LG Berlin, judgment of 17 December 2015 - 20 O 175/15

    Google Scholar 

  • Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2015 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content COM(2015) 634 final

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, OJ L 119/1, 4 May 2016 (GDPR)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt

Authors
  1. Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Mor Bakhoum

  2. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Beatriz Conde Gallego

  3. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt

  4. Faculty of Law, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Gintarė Surblytė-Namavičienė

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mackenrodt, MO. (2018). Personal Data After the Death of the Data Subject—Exploring Possible Features of a Holistic Approach. In: Bakhoum, M., Conde Gallego, B., Mackenrodt, MO., Surblytė-Namavičienė, G. (eds) Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 28. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57646-5_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57646-5_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-57645-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-57646-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation